21 How are new scientific concepts expressed?

percrassus

• ὕλη, in common language 'wood for construction', becomes in Latin silva (Lucretius) or usually materia. Both these words have very similar common meanings to the Greek one (e. g. in Vitruvius). • ἀπόφανσις, in common language 'declaration, statement', is used in Aristotelian logic as 'predication'. In Latin it is usually rendered as enuntiatio ('declaration'), also becoming a technical term, for instance in Quintilian, Institutio oratoria VII.3.2, IX.1.23,ed. Rahn,vol. 2,pp. 58,258. • ἐνέργεια, one of the coinings of Aristotle (see chap. 7 §5 above). Latin writers struggled with a translation; actus or actio were tried, but both can stand for several other Aristotelian concepts as well. Eriugena tried operatio, Erasmus efficacia (in his translation of the New Testament). Modern Latin physicists just used the Greek word as energia (267 times in CC, as of April 2019). • εἶδος and ἰδέα, the two words Plato uses for his 'idea', are derived from ἰδεῖν ('to spot'); both were in use already before Plato and meant 'form, shape, outward appearance'. Cicero translates with species, which means the same things. Only later Latin also uses idea in order to be more precise (eight times in Seneca, then often in the Church Fathers). 4 Latin seems to behave similarly in fields that do not go back so decidedly to Greek models, as the juridical term curator ('legal guardian', non-technically just 'someone who takes care of'; Varro) suggests. Thus, an 'Aristotelian' approach to new coinings in Classical Latin times can be made out.
In contrast, scholastic Latin (see chap. 11 §2 above) seems to use a more 'Democritean' approach (although the words do look less poetic than in Democritus). Some examples of scholastic coinings: aseitas ('existing out of itself'), compossibilis ('possible at the same time with something'), or mundialis ('pertaining to the world'). 5 There is an entire dictionary of such terminology specifically for Aquinas (by Schütz); some more special scholastic vocabulary will be listed below (chap. 24 §8).
Early modern times are possibly again somewhat more classicist in forming new words, but they still proceed similarly, for instance when speaking of a stemma codicum, a 'genealogical tree of the manuscripts' in textual criticism of the nineteenth century. Only in post-Latin times do tendencies change: many new words are derived from proper names (such as 'Lachmann's method ', or 'Bédierism'), and in the later twentieth and twenty-first centuries what could be called an American approach seems to gain ground: 6 here language games are used that become clear only a posteriori if at all; words may also be made up ungrammatically. Some random examples of such words without an etymology in the normal sense from psychology (see OED for more information): • 'limerence' = 'state of falling in love', since 1978; • 'bromance' = 'Platonic love between men', since around 1990; • 'alief' = 'unconscious belief', since 2008.
Latin writers never gave up the 'Democritean' approach, which has great mnemotechnic advantages. Jesuit schoolbooks from the twentieth century (see chap. 15 §7) do take over some terms more or less tel-quel from the vernaculars, such as elementa chromosomatum, conatus vitalis ('élan vital'), positivista, 7 but often reformulate terms that are not transparent or well formed for a Latinist, such as determinantia for 'genes', or they speak of evolutio ontogenetica to make Darwin's mere 'evolution' clearer.
Of course, counterexamples to the proposed approaches will be found in Latin Antiquity, scholasticism, and beyond, as well as in post-Latin modern science, but the trend does seem clear. In order to find out whether this can be confirmed in a very different science, a closer look is now taken at a small corpus of medical texts.
Seven medical texts §3 In order to study some more systematically gathered data, a small sample of Latin medical writers between Antiquity and the nineteenth century is examined. 8 A priori, one expects that such a practically relevant science may be more pragmatic with new terminology than the human sciences; but on the other hand, it equally goes back to Greek models and was often practised by highly educated Latinate men whoat least in Antiquity and early modern timeswere usually also proficient in Greek. Seven texts from different times were chosen and loaded in Corpus Corporum for further study. 9 The main methodological approach will be to identify words that cannot be found in the large dictionary of Classical Latin by 6 It would not seem to be simply an Anglo-Saxon approach, but specifically a North American one. The people who coined the terms that follow were all Americans. 7 Examples from Carolus Boyer, Cursus philosophiae. 8 For the development of medical thought from Antiquity to around 1800, see Grmek (1993Grmek ( -2007. 9 For methodological reasons, direct translations from Greek were excluded. Georges. 10 Some information about the size of these texts is presented in table 23; numbers in parentheses were obtained by counting only among the first 3,389 words, which is the length of the shortest text. The same PoS and other grammatical parameters that were used above (chaps 18-19) were also determined for these medical texts and printed above (tables 17-18). It was found that medical Latin corresponds well to other scientific Latin in some parameters (low: 1st SG, PRON:POSS; high: ADJ, 3rd PAS) but differs quite strongly from other, more theoretical sciences in others (not high: ESSE, PREP, N-SUF, modifiers; not low: ABL ABS, entropy). There were also some differences between early medical writers and later ones (especially up to and including Gordonius, low: PTC, CONJ:S), and sometimes Gordonius exhibited singular values (very low: ABL ABS, entropy; high: PREP) that seemed to point toward a more colloquial type of Latin. Especially the modern physicians exhibited values markedly similar to those of Pliny (in particular, very low: PRON, ESSE; low: CONJ, V, ACC; high: N; very high: PTC, entropy)a 'nominal' type of language. It may be that only after the time of Gordonius was a relatively homogeneous medical Latin, strikingly similar to Pliny's 'plain' approach to language, used. In fact, the medical parts of Pliny's encyclopaedia were often reused into early modern times. It is, of course, not possible to say based on the data here how far this is convergence and how far Pliny was influential as a rôle model. For the three earlier texts in the sample, circumstances were different: Celsus wrote before Pliny, Gariopontus relied strongly on texts translated from Greek, and Gordonius relied on Arabic medicine. In the summary plot in figure 46 above, the medical texts did not cluster clearly against other scientific texts, Gordonius ended up among scholastic texts, Vesalius close to Pliny, von Bene far off and close to Galileo, the others quite in the centre of the plot (the Isidore sample was too small to be meaningfully plotted). Before discussing these and other values further, a few words about the seven authors and their way of writing are included. Only the first two have been studied in depth to date; much of what has been found for Celsus will be valid for other medical Latin as well, although later authors create new words more liberally.
Cornelius C e l s u s , De medicina (ca. 25 BC-ca. AD 50): Celsus wrote a large encyclopaedia about the Artes, of which only the part about medicine is extant. The other parts apparently treated De re rustica, bellica, rhetorica, philosophia, de iure civili, 17 thus more practically usable sciences, excluding speculative (such as mathematical) ones whose province was still exclusively Greek. Celsus seems to have been the first Roman to write about medicine in Latin and can thus be com-pared to Cicero, who first wrote about Greek philosophy in Latin (Brolén, De elocutione, p. 4). His language is rather classical and concise; as Schanz & Hosius put it: 'Seine Sprache ist rein und einfach und hält sich von allem Schwulste frei' ('his language is pure and simple, completely free from bombast '; 1922-1935: 2:726). Brolén formulated (De elocutione, pp. 7, 10): numquam aut aliis verbis aut pluribus usus esse videatur, quam quibus opus erat ad res dilucide explicandas. Contra ubi vel exstabant latina verba ad res nominandas apta vel facile fingi poterant, a graecis videtur abstinuisse. 'he never seems to be using other or more words than were necessary to explain things clearly.' 'On the contrary, where there existed Latin words apt for naming things or that could be easily formed, he seems to abstain from Greek ones.' Schanz confirms (1881: 373) that this author always uses Latin names if available, for example veratrum (13 times), not ἑλλέβορος, for the plant 'hellebore'. Nonetheless, Celsus is, of course, not able to avoid Greek terminology altogether. 18 The word graecus (including the adverb graece) occurs 177 times in his work; in most of these passages, he is discussing terminology. At the very beginning he divides medicine thus (I, proem. 9, ed. Marx, p. 18): Primam διαιτητικήν, secundam φαρμακευτιχήν, tertiam χειρουργικήν Graeci nominarunt. 'The Greeks called the first part dietetics, the second pharmacology, the third surgery.' Often he tells the reader the Greek name and a Latin translation or equivalent. It is interesting to look at how these are formed; some examples: • φλεγμονή: inflammatio (I,proem. 16,ed. Marx,p. 19 Clearly, Greek compounds, which were much more frequently used in medicine than in Platonic or Aristotelian philosophy and science, often defied a one-word Latin translation. As the brief list shows, the explanatory translation may consist of two or three words, but occasionally even of an entire sentence. Occasionally, Greek terminology is not explained at all; Celsus obviously expects the reader to be familiar with these Greek names: In both these cases, we still use the Greek word for these diseases in modern languages such as English. Very rarely, Celsus apparently tries to coin a new term himself, as for the zygomatic bone (VIII.1.7, p. 364; English uses the Greek term!): os […] iugale appellari potest, ab eadem similitudine, a qua id Graeci zygodes appellant.
There are no uninflected words in the list. Most of these few words will not be new coinings but rather happen not to be preserved in earlier texts; it would seem that Celsus hardly, or not at all, coined new words. 22 Practising Latin physicians in Antiquity will have used Greek terms when no Latin ones were at hand. Patients who knew no Greek may even have been impressed by the educated doctor. Commonly used words in special, technical meanings are, of course, not so easily extracted automatically from a text, but they seem to be more common: for instance, Celsus uses ductio ('purging') or acutus ('acute (disease)'). I s i d o r e o f S e v i l l e (ca. 560-636) has already been treated as an encyclopaedist above (chap. 9 §7). 23 Although book IV of his Etymologiae, entitled De medicina, is not strictly speaking a medical work, as it is interested primarily in the formation of the words used in medicine, it may still be usable as an indicator of medical Latin vocabulary in his time. He explains the following 101 medical terms, which provide good examples of rare terms in the text (in brackets in classical orthography, again underlined are words with Greek parts):

Sample of seven medical texts
Only 34 of these are fully Latin words. Besides many medical technical terms, there are also some quite common ones such as odor, sanitas, or sanguis. Exclusively nouns are explained, many of them ending in -a or -is. Looking at the entire text (without the headings), 21 words are found that Georges does not list or mentions only for Isidore (classical spelling in brackets): These are 15 nouns, 5 adjectives, and 1 verb; one of these words is noted by Isidore as colloquial (sarnam). Not included in the list are words that Isidore invented exclusively for the sake of his etymologies (A quasi B), such as: In general, Late Antiquity had a freer approach to coining new words than the 'classical' period (ca. 100 BC-ca. AD 100). 26 In the case of Isidore, there are indeed quite a few, mostly nominal, derivations, but he does not form new genuine compounds. G a r i o p o n t u s (d. ca. 1050) has also been mentioned in passing above (chap. 9 §12). He is one of the early authors associated with the medical school at Salerno. His work Passionarius was very successful; there are some sixty-five known manuscripts. 27 This author used mediaeval medical texts often ultimately going back to late antique translations from Greek to compile his large work, for instance the texts known as Aurelius and Esculapius (Late Antiquity) and texts by Theodorus Priscianus (fourth century). Besides the manuscripts, there are also several early modern prints showing that the knowledge collected by Gariopontus did not seem to be perceived as outdated even five hundred years later. 28 His text is used as an example of early Salerno medicine before the influx of Arabic and 24 Quoting Celsus' text quoted above, but in Latin letters: Sunt autem omni curationi species tres: primum genus diaeticum, secundum pharmaceuticum, tertium chirurgicum. 25 Similarly: pastulentia, piligmenta, squammies. 26 See chap. 9 above, and further examples from Christian Latin in Blaise (1955: 15-16). 27 Eliza Glaze is preparing an edition. For now, see Glaze (2009) on the text. 28 e. g. the edition Gariopontus, Passionarius (1526). In 1576, the work was still printed in the florilegium De febribus opus sane aureum, non magis utile, quam rei medicae profitentibus necessarium (Venetiis: apud Gratiosum Perchacinum; https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_mG06v0J9 yXgC).
Greek translations. The text is heavily dependent on late antique medical literature; its Latin is strongly influenced by it.
B e r n a r d u s d e G o r d o n i o (ca. 1258-ca. 1320) was a professor of medicine at the University of Montpellier, which was the leading school for medicine in his time besides Salerno. A text of his is used as an example of scholastic university medical Latin from the late thirteenth century. Very little is known about the authorbasically, only what can be extracted from his many works. Chaucer mentions his name in a list of famous physicians (Canterbury Tales, ed. Skeat, line 434). According to Demaitre (1980), ten genuine works of his are known. The Tractatus de crisi et de diebus creticis, of which there is a recent critical edition, is used here. It treats the scientia praedicendi for many different diseases. Its editor, Guardo, notes that the treatise's language is very similar to that used at the school of Salerno and especially that of Constantinus Africanus (edition, p. 71). 29 It will be found that this text contains the most un-classical vocabulary among the sample; the author occasionally also uses Arabic loanwords.
In early modern times, medical writers become more or less influenced by humanist language. Once Greek medicine was fully assimilated, Arabic terms disappear more and more from Latin medical texts (with a few exceptions that often live on in our modern languages: alcohol, camphora, elixir, sirupus, …). 30 But in the time of the humanist movement, there were also some physicians who sought to 'improve' their style and language more radically and write more classicist Latin. The best known such author is Andreas V e s a l i u s (treated in chap. 13 §4 above). Only book one of his major work De humani corporis fabrica was used in this study, and only Latin words were considered (Vesalius tends to compare Greek and Hebrew names to the Latin ones he actually uses). His style is definitely classicist and his vocabulary richer than usual (most lemmata per sample); the use of words not attested in Georges is rare, but even a classicist cannot always avoid some new words in fields like this one. Sometimes they are Latin names for parts of the body not attested in Antiquity (such as mammillares) or derivations (about which more in the next section), such as arterialis, arteriola; and sometimes words that are now very inconspicuous and common, such as cuneiformis, are found in Vesalius (no other occurrences in Corpus Corporum). Many of these words are nouns. These new terms, however, tend to be constructed in a straightforward Greek or Latin way that might not have surprised, say, Cicero. D a n i e l S e n n e r t (1572-1637) was a renowned Lutheran physician in Wittenberg, whose speciality was iatrochemistry. 31 His voluminous Institutiones medicinae written in 1520 in five volumes is only one of his many works. 32 Sennert's vocabulary already reminds the reader of modern medical Latin terminology. Although Sennert's Latin also avoids what was perceived as typically mediaeval (Arabic words, 'scholastic' syntax, mediaeval spelling), his Latin is much more pragmatic than Vesalius'. There are hundreds of words not found in the Georges dictionary; many of them are graeca, but here are some purely Latin ones: alimentalis, alimentaris, alimentosus, cinamomum, circumgyratio, deglutitio, flatulentia, flatulentus, flatuosus, putredinalis, putrescibilis, scorbutum, serositas, serosus, besides many colour adjectives differentiated with sub-(as already in Celsus). A few terms are explicitly described as colloquial: 33 lancetta, menstrua alba, spelta. A rare example of a term derived from a vernacular language is scorbutus from French, which in turn was derived from Middle Low German schorbûk (according to the OED). Of course, there are also many names of medicinal plants and substances, such as equisetum, tormentilla, veronica, zedoaria. Sometimes adjectives turn into nouns: caeliaca (passio) ('an intestinal disease, coeliac disease'). 34 Many of these terms and suffixes are still in use today in medical science, despite the fact that modern medicine does not use Latin any longer. Sennert's free use of new terms put together from Greek and Latin constituent parts, especially with the use of suffixes and prefixes, seems to have been the standard approach for early modern physicians. 35 Later physicians such as Francis Home in his Principia medicinae (4th ed., Amstelodami, 1775) still use a language similar to the one found in Sennert, although there seem to be rather more new technical terms; barely Latinised Greek compounds (such as ophistotonus) are even more common, as are terms consisting of two Latin words (scarlatina febris). They are often descriptive and need no explanation (procidentia ani). A physician from the nineteenth century was chosen as the last Latin author to be considered in the sample here.
F r a n z v o n B e n e t h e E l d e r (fl. 1818) was a Hungarian medical doctor who worked in Budapest. He was senior at the medical faculty. 36 His five-volume work Elementa medicinae practicae (Pest, 1833-1834) was published posthumously by his son of the same name. Von Bene the elder also wrote a short treatise, Brevis doctrina de vaccina (Buda, 1818), about the recent technique of vaccination against smallpox using fluid from cowpox pustules (variolae vaccinae), which explains the English and Romance name 'vaccination' ('cowing'). Toward the middle of the nineteenth century, it was no longer common in most of Europe to publish medical treatises in Latin. This was only continued in countries in which none of the major emerging vernaculars was in use, such as Hungary. The Elementa treat in this order: Doctrina de febribus, De inflammatione generatim, Inflammationes in specie (among which: encephalitis, myelitis, otitis, glossitis, diaphragmitis, all words absent from Latin dictionaries and Corpus Corporum), Efflorescentiae cutaneae (among which: lupus, erysipelas, framboesia), 37 Excretiones morbosae, Retentiones, Cachexiae, Nevroses (many diseases ending in -algia, further split into dolores, spasmi, debilitates, vesaniae). A glance at the detailed index shows that here for the first time in this survey proper names are in use, for instance morbus maculosus Werlholfii, or methodus Weinholdii against syphilis. But this was still very much the exception.
In order to provide a more tangible example of this final stage of medical Latin, a random excerpt of this hardly known text is provided here. Linguistically interesting features are highlighted as in chapter 19 §4 above. The quoted text is from Elementa medicinae practicae, vol. 1, §205, Pest edition, pp. 267-268; it treats inflammations and their causes.
Ad naturam inflammationis individualem definiendam collectio symptomatum sola haud sufficit, sed causae etiam erui debent. In omni QUIDEM QUIDEM homine inflammatio evolvi potest, aliqui TAMEN TAMEN dispositionem eminentiorem possident, vel ad omnem inflammationem, vel ad unam alteramve in specie, quae dispositio saepe haereditate acquisita, congenita, saepe per influxus diversos generata est . In genere sexus virilis corripitur frequentius inflammationibus, licet nec in sexu foemineo rarus sit morbus; qui temperamento cholerico -sanguin eo gaudent, facilius inflammationem experiuntur, quam temperamento A group of symptoms alone does not suffice to define the individual nature of an inflammation; instead, the causes also need to be elicited. An inflammation may develop in any human being, but some have a more conspicuous disposition either for all inflammations or for one or the other especially. This disposition is often hereditary, inborn, often caused by diverse influences. In general, the male sex is more often attacked by inflammation, although the disease is not rare among the female sex either. Those who enjoy a choleric-sanguine temperament experience inflam-36 Callisen (1830-1845: 26:233). 37 Derived from French framboise ('strawberry').

Sample of seven medical texts
phlegmatico ac melancholico praediti. Relate ad vitae periodos inflammationes frequentissimae sunt in aetate iuvenili ac virili, non tamen rarae in aetate infantili, imprimis tempore dentitionis, facile evolvitur meningitis ; aetate puerili infesta est tracheitis ; aetas iuvenilis pronior est in peripneumoniam et carditidem ; in muliere metritides , in viro ac sene inflammationes viscerum abdominalium facile evolvuntur. In inflammationem perpessis generatur per eam dispositio ad eamdem inflammationem. Causae excitantes inflammationum sunt multiplices inter quas frequentissime accusatur influxus atmosphaerae noxius; subinde calore suo exaltato sive per radios solis, sive per artem, provocat non tantum cutis ambustionem, sed et alias phlegmasias graves. Longe frequentius tamen excitatur inflammatio per refrigerium, cuius actione non tantum pernio, sed etiam inflammationes diversae internae producuntur, imprimis si corpus antea incaluerit et in sudore constitutum fuerit; ideo inflammationes topicae frequentissimae quidem sunt hyeme, sed non rarae etiam aestate et sub zona torrida, dum per pluvias, aut per ventum frigidum, temperatura aeris notabiliter imminuitur; subinde mutatio partium constitutivarum, accumulatio excessiva oxygenii , praesentia vaporum diversorum irritantium vegetabilium aut mineralium, vel constitutio peculiaris atmosphaerae provocat inflammationem topicam . mations more easily than those endowed with a phlegmatic or melancholic one. In relation to the periods of life, inflammations are most frequent in juvenile and adult age, but they are not rare in infant age; especially during dentition, meningitis develops easily. Puerile age is pestered by tracheitis, juvenile age is more prone to peripneumonia and carditis. Among women metritis, among men and old men inflammations of the abdominal viscera easily develop. Among sufferers of an inflammation, a disposition is produced by it for the same inflammation. The causes of inflammations are multiple, among them noxious atmospheric influx is most often held responsible, frequently by its high temperature or by the Sun's radiation, or artificially it provokes not only a burn of the skin but also other grave types of burns under the skin. But most frequently, inflammation is caused by cold, whose action produces not only frostbite but also various internal inflammations, first of all if the body is heated up sweating previously. Therefore, topical inflammations are most frequent in winter, but not rare either in summer and in torrid zones when the temperature of the air is reduced noticeably by rain or cold wind. Frequently, a change in the constituting parts, an accumulation of oxygen, of diverse irritating vegetable and mineral vapours, or a particular constitution of the atmosphere provokes a topical inflammation.
The Latin looks very technical, especially the vocabulary, which is often formed with suffixes (but besides von Bene, only Gordonius uses suffixes profusely in our sample). The plain, unrhetorical syntax resembles that of Pliny: the content looks like a list. As can be seen, the modern Latin-based medical terminology is already very much developed in this text, and many of the technical terms are still identical in medical English today; exceptions, such as terms from humoral pathology, are due to changes in the scientific Denkstil. §4 In order to achieve a more systematic approach to how novel vocabulary typically looks in these seven authors, a list of lemmata not known to the Perseus PoS tagger or to Georges was generated. 38 In order to use the same amount of text for 38 Normal Greek words (that can be found in LSJ) and orthographic variants (such as Isidore's apostoma for apostema) are not listed. 39 See this same list already above, with some comments.
40 Quite a few words Gariopontus uses are only known to Georges from Caelius Aurelianus or Theodorus Priscianus, whose texts were among Gariopontus' sources. 41 More information about most of these words can be found in Guardo's glossary to the edition.

New lemmata
Arranging the above in a table according to PoS yields table 24. The low numbers in Vesalius may be expected, but those in Sennert are surprising; they are not an artefact, although he speaks at the beginning of his work about the nature of medicine, which may be expected to use a different register (dedications and praefationes were not included in our counts). 42 The table shows that Bernardus uses non-classical words most commonly; Vesalius and Sennert in early modern times the least; Isidore, Gariopontus, von Bene quite a lot. Only Bernardus uses words that are not derived from Greek or Latin, namely Arabic ones (nenufare, subet, syrupus, zuccara). 43 All in all, it would seem that the tendency to use new words in medicine continued to rise, despite a little dip due to humanist classicism. The more lasting influence from this movement may lie in the fact that non-Graeco-Latin words ('barbaric' ones, according to humanists) were henceforth shunned and that classical rules for forming new words were more strictly followed. An unexpected observation is that modern authors use more unusual adjectives than nouns. No new uninflected words were found in the sample, which would seem to be a normal feature of many languages of science (see chap. 18 §4).

Contemporary post-Latin terminology §5
In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Latin is practically not used for medical publications any more; a science of such practical importance obviously produced vernacular publications early on, 44 and only theoreticians strove to remain a closed circle and wrote Latin. Nonetheless, most of the vocabulary touched upon here is still very much in use in medicine today. Many diseases, drugs, and methods still bear the traditional Graeco-Latin names in medical English or German. In general, it can be observed that names already in use in the corpus hippocraticum have often remained in use (such as ischias or gangraena). Such Greek terminology is often not explained by the Latin authors, even if the word has a Latin homophone, such as coma (Greek 'coma', Latin 'hair'). 45 A look at how new medical phenomena are named today, in the post-Latin age, shows that in general there seems to be more freedom in the choice of namesa postmodern 'anything goes' seems to apply, similarly to what was observed above for the human sciences.  . 47). • 'Toll-like receptors', a class of proteins important in the immune system, are named after the Drosophila gene 'toll'; its German discoverer thought it was toll ('awesome'). Similar cases abound. One more: 'spaetzle' is the name of a protein of Drosophila melanogaster (named after the Swabian dish) which, apparently, produces larvae resembling Spätzle. Its precursor is called prospaetzle. • Sometimes new terms can even consist of affixes only, such as 'polyoma' (cf. Gottlieb & Villarreal 2001), referring to the ability of viruses to produce multiple (πολύ) tumours (-oma)a word without a root.
Clearly, this modern proliferation of terminology loses the mnemotechnical advantages the old Graeco-Latin system had. Today, medical students have to learn by heart countless abbreviations and many names without any relation to what is named ('sin nombre virus'); whereas in the past, after they had mastered some Latin and Greek, much of the terminology became more or less automatically understandable. It is to be hoped that molecular biology terminology will be improved at some point, as happened in organic chemistry through IUPAC in the twentieth century. This modern 'anything goes' approach can be traced back in principle at least to the late eighteenth century, for instance the entomologist Johann Christian Fabricius (1745-1808) said (Entomologia systematica, Hafniae, 1792, 1:x): Nomina valent uti nummi praetio certo, determinato. Optima sunt, quae omnino nil significant. 'Names have a certain, determined value like money. Those are the best that mean nothing whatsoever.' His teacher Linnaeus had already held similar views. But in practice such an approach becomes common only in vernacular science in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. §6 Nonetheless, some Latin systems of nomenclature are still in use. From early modern times onward (at least since Sennert), the suffix -itis has been used to denote an inflammation 46 of the organ in the head of the compound, such as rhachitis (ῥαχῖτης) or hepatitis (ἡπατῖτις). Originally, this Greek suffix denoted similarity, so semantically a 'liver inflammation' grew out of Greek 'like the liver'. This suffix is now freely combinable in this function (diaphragmitis, paraphrenitis, …).
In contrast to -itis, the normal Latin functions of the three suffices -alis, -osus, -olus are still in use here. They were already used systematically by Sennert and to some extent Vesalius (despite the fact that the resulting words may not have existed in Classical Antiquity). The last-mentioned example shows another type of new word produced by Greek compounding. There are many 'frozen' Greek words primarily used as suffixes in medical language today. Besides -sclerosis (σκλήρωσις, 'hardening'), we can mention -algia (ἄλγος, 'pain'; e. g. 'gastralgy', 'neuralgy') to denote pain, -ectomia (ἐκτομή, 'cutting away'; as in 'appendicectomy', 'vasectomy') to denote the surgical removal or cutting of something, or -mania (μανία, 'madness'; as in 'nymphomania', 'hippomania') to denote a pathological engagement with something. Thus, a physician does not have to learn how arthralgy differs from arthritis; he only needs to know the Latin medical suffixes. In English today such suffixes are occasionally also used with non-Latin heads: 'seizurogenic' 48 means 'something that induces seizures'. Dirckx (1983) offers a survey of modern English medical terminology and its roots which is full of instructive and often amusing examples. On the whole, it is almost exclusively long-known diseases and body parts that bear English names. Discoveries of modern, scientific medicine tend to bear Latin or Greek names, as do parts of the body that are hard to observe and thus did not have a common English non-scientific name. Although many of the recently coined Latin and Greek names are not well formed according to classical rulessuch as the Graeco-Latin 'hyper-tension'they have the advantages of being capable of international use and of being unambiguous: exactly the same reasons that kept Latin as a whole alive in the sciences much longer than in many other areas of life. Since knowledge of the classical languages among physicians has almost disappeared, word-material from various languages is now quite freely combined, such as 'beet-uria', 'alkal-osis', 'acetyl-choline', 'vin-yl' (Dirckx 1983: 106), but there is still a clear domination of morphemes from Greek and Latin. There is, however, also some danger of misuse due to 'a craze to attach labels ([…] cardioselective), an obsession to manufacture jargon (atraumatic normosis), or a weakness for no-by Lavoisier in 1783), oxygenium (oxygène, Lavoisier in 1777; mistaken name: acids are characterised by hydrogen ions, not oxygen).
• (iv) From the nineteenth century onward, after the place of discovery: ruthenium ( Greek and Arabic were very distant languages that hardly anybody in the Latin West knew, and thus stood on nearequal footing. In Antiquity and early modern times, this was very different: educated people were expected to know Greek. Thus, Greek words in Latin texts were in these times seen rather as enrichment than as foreign elements. The trend in all examples in this chapter was that in Antiquity, Latin authors tended to have what we called an 'Aristotelian' approach toward nova verba. In contrast, the Middle Ages and early modern times followed a more 'Democritean' 53 Vicipaedia explains: Verbum 'cobaltum' deductum est a verbo germanico Kobold, quod manem malum significat, ita appellatum a metallicis qui in fodinis laboraverunt, quia veneficium fuit et aerumnas multas fecit in aerem elementorum aliorum effodendo, ut qualitatem eorum diminuit ('The word "cobalt" is deduced from the German word Kobold, which means "evil spirit"; it was called thus by the mineworkers who worked in the mines because it was poisonous and caused much distress in the air when other elements were to be dug up, as it diminished their quality'; https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobaltum, October 2017). 54 Details in Kopp (1843: 222-226). one. The differences between the Middle Ages and modernity lay only in details in the formation of words. A greater change of approach happened exactly at the time when Latin fell out of common use in the sciences and people apparently stopped being held back by Latin stylistic concerns in medical science. But even von Bene in the nineteenth century still hardly uses personal names or other non-transparent coinings. During the entire Latin period, the approach to nomenclature and language in general was very different from that adopted in the twentieth century, as the few post-Latin examples above have shown. The Latin approach can be very well illustrated by Isidore's explanation of what an etymologia issomething quite different from our modern genetic 'etymologies' (Etymologiae I.29.1-5, ed. Lindsay; Latin text quoted in chap. 1 §9 above): 'Etymology is the origin of words, as the meaning of a verb or a noun is gathered from its explanation.
[…] Its knowledge often has a necessary application in understanding [a word]. For, as you see whence a word stems, you will more easily understand its force.
[…] Many [words] are also summoned from the speech of various peoples. Thus also their origin may be hard to discern.' In the contemporary American approach to naming new medical phenomena, there can be no question of understanding the terms' 'semantic force'; they are often purely arbitrary. In fact, it looks as if a new agglutinative technical language could be emerging, using for its constituents more or less anything and allowing free combination, as 'polyoma' above showed. But this does still seem to be different in other sciences, for instance in the German human sciences, the Geisteswissenschaften, where the importance of abstract concepts that need to be expressed correctly is to this day higher; in German, the usual method is making use of compounds (which Latin, French, or English could hardly imitate), 55 whereas English has turned much more definitely to an 'anything goes' approach, as the examples in §2 illustrated.
One can look for internal, philosophical, language-normative views behind the differences observed. The rhetorical dislike of nova verba in Antiquity that we met above (chap. 8) stood in contrast to (as Stotz characterised scholastic Latin) a desire to have 'für jedwelches Gedachte einen unmittelbaren sprachlichen Zugriff durch ein Einzelwort' ('for any thought, immediate linguistic access through a single word'), 56 which would explain the more 'Democritean' approach in schol-55 Good examples can be found in the works of Heidegger, Gadamer, or Luhmann. These authors often do not define their new compounds: they are taken to be understandable simply through their constituent parts and the context of their usea very different approach than the American one current in the natural sciences. 56 Stotz (1996( -2004.

Conclusions
asticism and the later Middle Ages. Now, interestingly, this scholastic desire did not seem to fall prey to the humanists, at least in the province of medical science, where authors used less unusual terms for some time but our last authors had no scruples at all. Only after the end of the general knowledge of and heavy training in Latin for all intellectuals did the current predicament, which allows much more freedom in naming novelty, come aboutoutside the Latin medium. Next, a step back is taken to see how Latin was able to render Greek science in comparison to other traditional languages of science. This will be done with another case study involving texts by Aristotle and Euclid.